PDA

View Full Version : 9th Court B.S.


~DEVO~
05-12-2006, 11:47 AM
I am getting sick of stupid crap like this...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0416049p.pdf

NRAhighpowershooter
05-12-2006, 12:34 PM
MKS took a LOT of people.. they were basically welding the receivers and selling them without ATF approval! MKS also tried to BS people saying their receivers were legal by enclosing some letter addressed to someone else and not associated with MKS at all!! Also MKS played VERRRY loose with their books.. a LOT of their receivers sold, never went into their books! When the AFT went around and consficated the receivers there were a bunch that never got taken.. owners never contacted by ATF either. I personally know 4 people that still have their MKS receivers..They were and still are expecting the AFT to come and take them... but if it hasn't happened by now it won't as the ATF has been in posession of the MKS books for a few years now and have WAYYYYY to much time to have consficated them by now.

MrTuffPaws
05-12-2006, 2:05 PM
I don't think you can blame the court on this one. The law is pretty clear, stupid as it may be. Blame the legislators

Charliegone
05-12-2006, 5:31 PM
Not too familiar with the receivers in this case, what makes them full auto?

Charliegone
05-12-2006, 7:23 PM
1 Issue would be the receiver was a M14 MG receiver and then there is the the once a MG always a MG clause

Would say that law is the stupidest one of all.:rolleyes:

anothergunnut
05-12-2006, 8:52 PM
It would have been more interesting if they had compared how long it takes to modify a commercially manufactured semi-auto M14 (ie M1a1) to fire fully automatic. I would assume that a semi-auto could be converted to full auto within two hours.

As many times as the 9th circuit gets overturned by the supremes, most of the cases they decide do not go to the supreme court and they end up the law of the land (in the 9th circuit).

~DEVO~
05-12-2006, 11:13 PM
I just hope that they don't try making a jump from a true MG to the newly manufactured semi-auto design. Just cause the rifles look the same, it doesn't mean the operate the same.:(

hoffmang
05-12-2006, 11:57 PM
Devo,

Though there are some annoying parallels, the Federal definition doesn't have a lot of impact on the State definition due to the different paths of jurisprudence.

paradox
05-13-2006, 6:21 AM
I just hope that they don't try making a jump from a true MG to the newly manufactured semi-auto design. Just cause the rifles look the same, it doesn't mean the operate the same.:(

When is a rifle a machinegun? This appeal asks whether the rifle seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) from Mark Brown is a “machinegun” within the meaning of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The definition of a machinegun under § 5845(b) includes a weapon that “can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.”

The court followed the obvious meaning of those words to get to their conclusion. If a M14 style reciever was never a machinegun it can not be restored to machinegun status, it has to be modified into machinegun status. This is the same kind of headache that the DOJ will run into if they try to push the "ability to be restored to have the capability of accepting a detachable magazine." That may work for a S&W M&P15, but won't fly for a stripped lower that never had a standard mag catch installed.